The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I wasn't aware that we could only get food form the EU  ?

I think that misses the point, doesn't it? It's about a potential short-term/immediate effect on the logistics of importing the food that we currently do get via the supply chains that are currently in place.

I'm not saying that I go along with his scenario (though I can see where he's coming from and thus don't discount it) but I don't think we can just go elsewhere works well as a response (at least in the short term).

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

We can, but at the moment (for the bulk of it) we don't. Do you have any idea how long it will take to set up the contracts, supply, shipping, storage et cetera to replace 13,000 daily lorries of goods?

Nobody is suggesting that no food will ever enter the country again. But it doesn't take long for people to empty the shelves of a supermarket while you're trying to work out how to get that lorry of tomatoes out of Morocco.

Can we assume that given your solution is "just buy it from somewhere else", that you have no quibbles with the rest of my post? There is nothing you think I've missed that means my scenario can't happen?

tbh I don't agree that shelves are going to be empty , even our govt isn't so inept that this will happen  ( well I say that , but it is the govt after all)  ... I was just conscious that your post deserved a reply and I tried to give one without covering the same old ground ... buy it elsewhere is the short answer  , but equally I don't mean that we need to have a chlorinated chicken type scaremongering thing going on  .. we import 25% of our food goods from the EU , I'm sure some of the other areas we currently import from will be happy to step up if the EU don't want to strike a deal ...around 160 countries make up a significant portion (about 12%) of our food imports , is it a huge stretch to imagine that % could be increased ?

[tonyh29]

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I think that misses the point, doesn't it? It's about a potential short-term/immediate effect on the logistics of importing the food that we currently do get via the supply chains that are currently in place.

I'm not saying that I go along with his scenario (though I can see where he's coming from and thus don't discount it) but I don't think we can just go elsewhere works well as a response (at least in the short term).

I've kinda touched on it in another post , but it's 25% that comes from the EU  , I'll concede there could be a scenario where some of those exports are delayed / blocked (  though tbh I don't agree it will ) , but empty shelves just seemed a bit doomsday / end of the world

I'll miss my Toblerone fix if the EU decide to stop shipping it to us in the short term ..but I'm sure I'll still be able to get a bar of Cadburys to replace it

[Xann]

2 hours ago, colhint said:

 ... I'll take your word on it though, you seem to be an expert.

Did my best not to be a f***wit when casting a vote that won't simply be reversed by voting for a party with a different polarity five years down the line.

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I think it's something like Preferential / Non preferential Rules of origin  and how the rule is interpreted  ... If two or more countries are involved in the production of goods, the concept of "last, substantial transformation" determines the origin of the goods.

 I don't profess to be an expert in this area but maybe that's how tariffs are being avoided ?

I appreciate the answer but that's not really where I was going. I understand the Rules of Origin thing (when I say that, I mean that I understand that there is a Rules of Origin thing and that it can get very complicated ).

The question is not about tariffs being avoided but what actually applies to what, from where, and why and also how we, in order to consider future effects, can find out.

Perhaps we should just talk in terms of general examples (i.e. a change in tariffs for products from the EU that we know attract no tariffs versus either a product from outside the EU that does attract an import duty and thus will have no change post brexit or a product that attracts no import duties because of a current FTA with the EU which will also attract an import duty post Brexit by virtue of us no longer being a party to that particular FTA - with whomever that may be) but I'm not sure that would necessarily be most appropriate.

Edited October 10, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I've kinda touched on it in another post , but it's 25% that comes from the EU  , I'll concede there could be a scenario where some of those exports are delayed / blocked (  though tbh I don't agree it will ) , but empty shelves just seemed a bit doomsday / end of the world

I'll miss my Toblerone fix if the EU decide to stop shipping it to us in the short term ..but I'm sure I'll still be able to get a bar of Cadburys to replace it

Again, you seem to be missing the point that I think he was making.

It wasn't about 'the EU deciding to stop shipping ... to us in the short term' - it was about the logistical implications of the lorries that go over to the continent to get the food that we import from there being stuck on the motorway on the way in to Dover (because of administrative issues with regard to exporting our produce to the EU).

By 'empty shelves', the poster wasn't, I think, forecasting a permanent lack of goods in shops like some sort of post-apocalyptic film but rather the kind of event that we see when there's enough snow to stop the day's delivery of bread and milk getting to your local supermarket or even, sometimes, when there's merely the threat of snow for half an afternoon or when there are floods in Spain that mean (some) supermarkets don't have courgettes, broccoli, cucumber, &c. on their shelves (as happened earlier this year).

 

[tonyh29]

50 minutes ago, Xann said:

Did my best not to be a f***wit when casting a vote that won't simply be reversed by voting for a party with a different polarity five years down the line.

I think he was referring to the Daily Heil , not your voting intention  

 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

tbh I don't agree that shelves are going to be empty , even our govt isn't so inept that this will happen  ( well I say that , but it is the govt after all)  ... I was just conscious that your post deserved a reply and I tried to give one without covering the same old ground ... buy it elsewhere is the short answer  , but equally I don't mean that we need to have a chlorinated chicken type scaremongering thing going on  .. we import 25% of our food goods from the EU , I'm sure some of the other areas we currently import from will be happy to step up if the EU don't want to strike a deal ...around 160 countries make up a significant portion (about 12%) of our food imports , is it a huge stretch to imagine that % could be increased ?

It's not at all. But we're not talking about where do we get our food for the next decade. It's where do we get our food for April 2019 in the event of a Government flounce, and what will be the societal impact of a shortage. It made the evening news when a storm ruined Spain's lettuce harvest meaning people had to go without salad leaves for a couple of days.

So, let's continue with the proposed solution. Let's assume that there is enough food somewhere else to feed 60m people that we can order at short-notice. Let's say that supply and shipping go smoothly. There's now a cargo ship of food docking in Southampton.

Now what?

Are we going to be examining every product for quality? If so, we have the same problem as before. Lack of capacity and inspectors. At the moment, we don't need many. So we don't have many.

We're not importing from the Single Market, where everything is checked and signed off at point of production meaning these point of entry checks aren't needed. How do you make sure what you are putting on the shelves is fit for purpose? Are you completely sure that as a producer, asked to provide lots of extra stock at short notice, and with a Government unilaterally saying "we're not going to test the quality of what we're being sent before putting it on the shelves", there is much incentive to send your highest quality stuff?

And how long before the first food-scare caused by unchecked imported food, before the press and public are insisting that everything is checked properly?

So again, logistics. Legally - if we want to let everything in, untariffed and unchecked then we can't discriminate. We are in breach of WTO rules if we do otherwise. Any country who wants to export those goods, is entitled to the same treatment. So "chlorinated chicken" (not that it's a particularly big problem itself) absolutely is back on the table as we've removed the mechanism by which we are able to discriminate against it.

Edited October 10, 2017 by ml1dch

[HanoiVillan]

I think we're possibly mostly in furious agreement with regards to the logistics issue. Of course medium-term it will be resolved, and even on a fairly short-term basis it will be possible to re-source plenty of products in the event that that proves to be necessary. I do think that there will likely be days, especially in the initial days, weeks and months after a hard Brexit, when you can't get your favourite German ham, Italian wine or French cheese from Waitrose because it's in a lorry that's been sat for 48 hours in a traffic jam 30 miles from Calais. But I don't see it being a massive issue. 

Everything keeps coming back to the real issue, which is that supply chain management have no idea what eventuality to prepare for because Theresa May stood up in Florence and said 'there will be an implementation period of around two years during which we will remain in, and abide by the rules of, the Single Market' or words to that effect, and then DFDS Liam Fox stood up at the Tory conference and said 'we will leave the Single Market in 2019' and nobody knows what the government even wants. 

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the May government decided to invoke Article 50 in the hope that time pressure would force all the contradictions in her caucus to resolve themselves. I can't think of a more reckless act of stupidity. 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

the real point of all of this is that there doesn't appear to be a clear and easy answer as to what particular goods attract what particular tariffs *and for what reason. This little episode appears to confirm to me, from the outside, the comments made by people who have spoken trade negotiations and agreements (who themselves have been involved in them previously) and have said that they're not the pieces of piss that people appear to think they ought to be.

Definitely. And when you said you were bored, you weren't joking!

[colhint]

I think people are over estimating the ability and  integrity of the EU food standards agency. 

Just this year, whilst everyone was knocking the US over chlorinated chicken, there has been a Salmonella crisis in Poland, Europe's largest exporter.

Quote

Poland is facing a Salmonella crisis this summer but the European Commission has withdrawn its support for the authorisation of the most efficient tool to fight against the bacteria in animal feed.

euractivy

there has also been this egg scandal, hidden by some the Germans call this a criminal case

Quote

Belgian officials have already admitted that they knew in June that eggs from Dutch farms might be contaminated with the fipronil insecticide

bbc

 

but perhaps more worryingly the FSA itself is slammed for having nearly half it's scientists with a conflict of interest, i.e. on the payroll of the people they are investigating

Quote

Almost half of EFSA experts still have financial conflicts of interests while the norm should be zero. The increase in the recruitment of independent experts is welcome, but without an independence policy that confirms the trend this development may only be temporary. After four years of repeated criticism from the European Parliament, why does EFSA’s management keep refusing to close the loopholes in their independence policy ?

corporate europe

I cant remember seeing much about these in the main news, maybe the eggs a bit.

[Chindie]

Our laws can't be that good. People keep breaking them.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, colhint said:

I think people are over estimating the ability and  integrity of the EU food standards agency. 

Just this year, whilst everyone was knocking the US over chlorinated chicken, there has been a Salmonella crisis in Poland, Europe's largest exporter.

euractivy

there has also been this egg scandal, hidden by some the Germans call this a criminal case

bbc

but perhaps more worryingly the FSA itself is slammed for having nearly half it's scientists with a conflict of interest, i.e. on the payroll of the people they are investigating

corporate europe

I cant remember seeing much about these in the main news, maybe the eggs a bit.

In one part, you're dead right, I think. It's far from perfect. Definitely flawed.

Where I differ is with the Chlorinated Chicken thing.

The first instances you mention, are basically around standards being breached - things which are not permitted to happen in the EU nevertheless happening and not being dealt with as effectively as we'd hope.

But the Chlorine chicken thing is different. That's something which the US allows to happen - their approach is never mind food hygiene, the environment, animal welfare, just douse the dead birds in chlorine to kill all the germs and filth and it'll be right. It's a set of standards which are much lower, much worse and which, because of that mean meat has to be soaked with toxic chemicals to make it "safe".

[Chindie]

The chlorinated chicken thing has wrongly been chucked into the bin marked scare mongering. This is the thing with opening up to new markets. We can go to Africa for our food needs all we want, but is the food to the same standards? That's a good thing the EU does. It demands a standard of quality, hygiene and welfare. That doesn't mean the process is perfect, things get through, people try it on. But we try to stop it.

Elsewhere? Perhaps not so much.

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

In one part, you're dead right, I think. It's far from perfect. Definitely flawed.

Where I differ is with the Chlorinated Chicken thing.

The first instances you mention, are basically around standards being breached - things which are not permitted to happen in the EU nevertheless happening and not being dealt with as effectively as we'd hope.

But the Chlorine chicken thing is different. That's something which the US allows to happen - their approach is never mind food hygiene, the environment, animal welfare, just douse the dead birds in chlorine to kill all the germs and filth and it'll be right. It's a set of standards which are much lower, much worse and which, because of that mean meat has to be soaked with toxic chemicals to make it "safe".

 the European Food Safety Agency has passed chlorinated-washed chicken as safe for consumption  ....

interestingly it does make US chicken 80% cheaper than EU chicken .... which could be why the EU objects to it ?

but once we leave , ... that's £30 a tonne EU subsidies on Wheat we can kiss goodbye to  and now 80% off a chicken  ..with all that spare money we can buy all the food we want  ... from the empty shelves in our supermarkets 

[colhint]

Does that suggest it;s just protectionism?

 

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 the European Food Safety Agency has passed chlorinated-washed chicken as safe for consumption  ....

interestingly it does make US chicken 80% cheaper than EU chicken .... which could be why the EU objects to it ?

but once we leave , ... that's £30 a tonne EU subsidies on Wheat we can kiss goodbye to  and now 80% off a chicken  ..with all that spare money we can buy all the food we want  ... from the empty shelves in our supermarkets 

Yes they have. Yes they've also banned it, because they say that dousing it in chemicals at the end, while it might make it not unsafe to eat, they want hygiene all the way through the process from farming to eating, and that chemicals at the end doesn't meet that requirement. The animal husbandry and environmental aspects in the US are worse than EU standards.

The British Chicken Growing Enthusiast Front , or whatever they're called (Farmers, really) are dead against the American way, too. If they have to compete with battery farmed, chemical doused cheaper US imports, then they're goosed. They look after the Chickens better, don't use chemicals etc. Yes there are abuses and IMO standards of husbandry need to improve a lot more - get rid of the cruelty, but the US way is the opposite.

CAP - yeah bag o'shite

[darrenm]

Completely off topic but thankfully being vegetarian I don't have to worry about eating diseased carcasses. /VirtueSignal

[NurembergVillan]

Having recently lived in a country which heavily relied on the US for massive amounts of its food (or certainly British Columbia does), it's alarming to see how flippant people can be about food standards, costs, and sourcing/production standards.

In Canada you pay extra for meat that is "antibiotic free".  It's quite the USP.  Want some delicious juice containing "Red Dye No.40"?  Or some mac and cheese containing yummy "Yellow Dye No.5 and No.6"?  Coming right up!

Like to use cosmetics?  The EU banned ingredient list numbers around 1300.  The US equivalent?  11.

ADA is a handy ingredient in both yoga mats, and bread.

On a diet?  Get some yummy Olestra into your system.

Even the Canadian delicacy of Canola Oil is properly grim when you read how it came about and how it's made.

Opening the doors to US farms and food producers is a terrifying proposition, and one I thought I'd escaped in moving back to the UK.  They say you are what you eat, and in this case that's a damning indictment of the food as much as it the people.

[NurembergVillan]

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Completely off topic but thankfully being vegetarian I don't have to worry about eating diseased carcasses. /VirtueSignal

Don't worry - they'll have plenty of dodgy shit lined up for the likes of you too!